Kerry Tobin wrote:And once again, stop trying to change what my suggestions are. Now you're talking about registration and taking away big forks and spoons. Have I said ANYTHING about limiting the guns or magazines? NOPE, because I don't believe that will actually help anything.

I realize that wasn't your argument, the line after it was regarding yours. I was using the same metaphor against both the liberal "assault rifle" and your processing arguments. You know, the old, "two birds with one stone". Given the current administration, I may only be able to legally throw one stone at a time.

Last edited by neup99 on Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:20 am, edited 2 times in total.

Thank you, President Obama, for pursuing common sense reforms to help protect Americans being slaughtered by military style assault rifles that have no place in civilian life.My only advice would be to not listen to the crazies out there and continue to move this country Forward.

At one time a muzzle loading flint lock was a military assault rifle. Are we going after them next ? ? ? ?

I have to laugh at people who have no idea what they are talking about but insist on voicing an opinion.

It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt ! !

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

Thank you, President Obama, for pursuing common sense reforms to help protect Americans being slaughtered by military style assault rifles that have no place in civilian life.My only advice would be to not listen to the crazies out there and continue to move this country Forward.

At one time a muzzle loading flint lock was a military assault rifle. Are we going after them next ? ? ? ?

I have to laugh at people who have no idea what they are talking about but insist on voicing an opinion.

It is better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt ! !

Be careful everybody.... if you don't agree with Old Scout he'll call you names and say you're stupid....

My only advice would be to not listen to the crazies out there and continue to move this country Forward.

Be careful everybody.... if you don't agree with Old Scout he'll call you names and say you're stupid....

Don't disagree with gun control or you will be considered one of the crazies.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

Old Scout wrote:Most honest people will follow the law, but do you seriously believe that anyone with criminal intent is going to submit to a background check.

That's the thing, they DO, well some of them anyway. In the last 10 years there have been 987,578 denials of the NICS background check. Of those, 577,814 had been convicted of a crime with a substantial sentence, 101,393 domestic violence, 94,478 had an outstanding warrant, 42,459 had a restraining order against them, 10,180 were denied for mental health reasons and 57 had renounced their US citizenship. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20130102_denials.pdf

These data DO NOT include false positives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2010 the FBI denied 76,000 firearm transactions from occurring. 94% of those were determined by the FBI to be “not referred to field, overturned, or canceled.” Meaning they were erroneous. Of the remaining cases that were actually investigated many were rejected because there was insufficient evidence, the person turned out not to be a felon, etc.

Thank god the intruder didn't count how many shots she had fired. It's too bad that she didn't have more than seven shots. She only had six. I suppose instead of shooting the man she should of just let him rape her and her kids. How dare she fight back. More guns are the answer?

There's a pretty big difference between having a gun at home for self-defense (which I support) and having armed people pull out guns in the middle of a public place because of some argument and shooting an innocent bystander.

So, you honestly believe what you just said about guns in the home but not on the street? What in gods green earth, do you think would happen if we made a law saying you could only have a gun in your home. Answer,,, bad people will still have them on the streets. So are we only allowed to protect ourselves in our holmes? What if I am attacked the next time that I go to see Batman?

Hey, you want to go hunting with a "normal" rifle, go grouse hunting with a shotgun, shoot squirrels off your back porch with a .22, have a handgun in your home for self-defense - fine by me.

But I have never heard of a situation when a person in public pulls out a gun and actually stops another person from committing mass murder. What happens when people walk around with guns? Eventually an innocent person gets caught in the crossfire, just like what happened in Texas a couple days ago. What happens when our society allows people to purchase semi-automatic rifles that were designed to be taken into the battlefield and load them up with 100 rounds of ammo without a background check? People get killed. A lot of them. And a common thing about all these mass shooters is that no "good guy with a gun" has ever stopped one. Obviously, people are going to get shot in our country, but if you take away the ability for madmen to do it so easily at least some lives will be saved. Isn't saving one life worth it?

And, on a personal note, have a little respect for the victims and family members of victims who have been killed in Aurora and other mass shootings. It's not funny to joke about that stuff.

And, the fact that they are not common has nothing to do with what asterisk said above... In order to hunt waterfowl you need a license which says you can only shoot so many birds per day. These bag limits are set up so that we won't shoot every bird out there like he's implying would happen if we had "unlimited ammo in our shoot guns".

More likely is that people just don't feel they need many shells in a shotgun at once. Usually you see a bird, take a couple shots, and reload.

First of all, I wasn't making a joke out of what happened in Colorado, I was just trying to put things in a way that you understand. Since it seems that if it doesn't fit your agenda you don't understand it.

Second, there is a reason you don't here about mass shootings that were stopped. They were stopped.

Third, you honestly believe that we limited ourselves to three shots because we felt, that was all we needed.

I have an extra rocker if you fell off of yours <----That was a joke so you know for future reference.

And, the fact that they are not common has nothing to do with what asterisk said above... In order to hunt waterfowl you need a license which says you can only shoot so many birds per day. These bag limits are set up so that we won't shoot every bird out there like he's implying would happen if we had "unlimited ammo in our shoot guns".

More likely is that people just don't feel they need many shells in a shotgun at once. Usually you see a bird, take a couple shots, and reload.

I really thought you had a good understanding of firearms and laws that govern them. Then I read this. Wow, WOW! A simple question about hunting, resulting in an answer that reveals a complete lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Anyone that knows anything about firearms knows that every pump and semiauto shotgun is capible of holding more than 3 shells, some much more. By federal law they must be "plugged" in order to be used to hunt waterfowl or any other migratory bird. The reasons for the required "plugging" has been detailed by Asterix, and he is 100% correct.

I also have no idea why oldie83 would ask such a question in a debate about gun controll.

Honest question for you: If my rifle was .22 caliber, had open rear and front sights, had a positive "on-off" safety, had a detachable box magazine that held 7 rounds, had plastic forearm and stock, and was semi-auto.....would that be considered to be a "normal" rifle?

Why is it perfectly acceptable for politicians to have armed guards but yet you think I should only be afforded the right to protect myself and my family in my home. If I were a criminal on the streets I would be agreeing with you. I am not saying that you are a criminal.

Xyz1, if you are so afraid of people with guns on the streets then how are you able to go out on the streets of Tomahawk with the amount of people that concealed carry. I for one feel safer knowing that I will be surrounded by good law abiding citizens that are armed. Also, if the day ever comes, I would even stand up with my gun to protect you in a grocery store or a gas station. I will not protect property with my gun, property is not worth the cost.

Honest question for you: If my rifle was .22 caliber, had open rear and front sights, had a positive "on-off" safety, had a detachable box magazine that held 7 rounds, had plastic forearm and stock, and was semi-auto.....would that be considered to be a "normal" rifle?